Unemployment (North-east)

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I congratulate my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), on securing this debate, whose importance is illustrated by the number of Labour Members who are present. I was going to try to be good and not lampoon—sorry, lambast—the coalition Government, but I cannot allow some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) to pass with no response.

The hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that the regional growth fund is an improvement in regional policy is completely incorrect. Any region can apply for funds, not just the most disadvantaged regions. I cannot understand why Easington, with an unemployment rate of 11.3%, is denied an enterprise zone and support from the regional growth fund, when affluent areas such as Oxford, Cambridge and Kent have enterprise zones and their companies are supported by the regional growth fund. Surely if the Government’s policy is to address regional imbalances, that is a good starting point.

[Ian Swales]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Grahame M. Morris]

The hon. Gentleman would not afford me that courtesy, but in the spirit of debate I will give way to him.

[Ian Swales]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not giving way. Perhaps I was in full flight, and did not see him seeking to intervene. Does he know how many projects in London and the south-east have been awarded regional growth fund money?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I do not, but I know that in my area I have lobbied hard on behalf of a number of companies that could bring substantial benefits to a hard-pressed area, and we are still waiting for decisions. That aspect of Government policy needs to be addressed.

The other issue that I am worried and upset about is that a Liberal Democrat occupies one of the highest offices of state, and the hon. Gentleman mentioned that Ministers often visit the area. They do not afford me the courtesy of saying when they are coming. When the Secretary of State visited my constituency, I was not advised in advance and I was not in a position to lobby him with bids from my area. However, I have taken that up separately. I will now try to make progress because I know that many hon. Members want to contribute.

I remind hon. Members that unemployment in my region is up by 8,000 to 145,000—a rate of 11.3%, which is higher than the national average. Under the Labour Government, the gap between the economy of the north-east and those of other regions was closing, with private sector business growth and employment. The Member for Redcar quoted some figures. In fact, after 10 years of Labour Government, the unemployment rate in the north-east was 5.7%—Labour came to power in 1997, and in November 2007 to January 2008 it was 5.7%—which was only 0.5% higher than the UK average. Now, though, it is 11.3%, which is 3.3% higher than the national average.

I did want to start on a positive note—[Laughter.] I am sorry about this, Mrs Brooke. I wanted to welcome the invaluable contribution that Nissan has made to our regional economy. Nissan is located in the constituency neighbouring mine to the north, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). Nissan’s presence has some benefits for the supply chain in east Durham. I commend Nissan for its tremendous commitment to our area. It is a shining example of what the north-east is capable of achieving with the right support from local and national Government. As hon. Members will be aware, the two new car models that are to be built will create more than 3,000 jobs across the UK over two years. Some 600 of those will be at Nissan’s Sunderland factory, with the remainder in the supply chain. I do not wish to criticise that success story.

I am looking to the Minister—[Hon. Members: “The Whip.”] Well, I will afford him the courtesy of calling him Minister. Welcome though they are, those new jobs do not come close to countering the job losses in my constituency. Over the past few weeks, I have referred to the haemorrhaging of private sector jobs in east Durham. That should be a real concern—it certainly is for me and all those who are affected. I cannot remember so many job losses in my constituency since the pit closure programmes, which is indicative of the desperate situation faced by many constituencies such as mine.

The Government’s Work programme does nothing to address the fact that unemployment is often focused in communities with the weakest local economies. The problem in the north-east is not so much one of joblessness as one of worklessness. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool mentioned the ratio of the number of people out of work and the number of vacancies, which is limited. I refer the Minister to an excellent report on that subject published by Sheffield university, which makes some positive suggestions about what could be done.

The Work programme has been in operation for one year, during which time the number of people in Easington claiming jobseeker’s allowance has risen by 20%. About 1,000 job losses have been announced in the past month, and that will affect my constituency, where 3,195 people are out of work. Companies closing down include Cumbrian Seafoods, JD Sports, Dewhirsts, Reckitt Benckiser and Robertson Timber. Some of those companies—all private sector—are closing as a consequence of the decline in the building and construction industry, but mostly it is a consequence of a reduction in demand.

There is yet another side to the story. Easington has a strong manufacturing tradition, with companies such as NSK, Caterpillar, GT Group, Actem UK and Seaward Electronic. Those companies are looking to the RDA replacement bodies and the Government for signs of support that will enable them to take on more workers. There are some large-scale private sector regeneration projects in the offing, but again we need leadership and support from the Government, because many of those programmes are suffering unjustifiable delays.

I will not embarrass the Government by mentioning the centre of creative excellence that could have created 500 jobs south of Seaham, but I will mention retail developments such as a new Tesco supermarket on the former site of East Durham college. That would create 400 new jobs and a new library—a much needed community facility at a time of spending restraint in the public sector.

Dalton Park phase 2 also offers a glimmer of hope for my constituency. Once the development is complete, it will support more than 100 construction jobs and 450 new retail jobs. It will provide new facilities that will greatly benefit the local community such as a new supermarket, hotel, cinema, and associated leisure facilities. Such planning applications are often controversial, but—incredibly—this one received the unanimous support of the local authority, as well as massive support from the local community and other county MPs, and I am thankful for that support. The development was also passed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. It is a rare phenomenon in that everybody seems to support it, but it is being delayed as the result of an application for a judicial review by Salford Estates, which owns Peterlee town centre. As I understand it, the founder of Salford Estates is a tax exile based in the tax haven of Monaco.

My point is that the communities in the north-east continue to be hit the hardest by Government policies that are driving down demand across the region. The promised private-sector led recovery has simply failed to materialise in our region, and the austerity and cuts agenda is taking money out of our local economies and making any potential recovery harder to realise. A decade of progress made under Labour to reduce the north-south divide is being reversed.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend alluding—perhaps not this explicitly—to the fact that problems of entrenched unemployment are very hard and take an awfully long time to fix? The north-east probably knows that better than any other region. The problem is not only worklessness but crime, mental ill health, homelessness and all the other associated problems that we know occur when there are high levels of unemployment.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point much more forcefully and directly than I could, and I completely agree with her.

It is up to this Government to learn lessons from those things that worked in terms of regeneration and growth and saw our region prosper in sectors such as exports over the past decade. I find it quite offensive when members of the governing coalition denigrate Labour’s efforts over the past decade, as if that Government produced no overall success.

I did not intend to quote statistics, but I shall put a couple on the record. Based on gross value added per head, the rate of growth in the north-east went from being the lowest of all regions during the 1990s to the second highest during the past decade. Let me also put to bed another myth propagated by the Tory party which claims that our public sector was squeezing out the private sector. That is just not true. As other hon. Members have indicated, in our view the public and private sectors are not mutually exclusive but mutually supportive. Between 2003 and 2008, private sector employment rose by 9.2% in our region, while at the same time public sector employment grew by only 4.1%. Between 1999 and 2007, the number of businesses in the north-east rose by 18.7%—a huge increase that compares favourably with London’s business growth of about 19.6% over the same period.

[Bridget Phillipson]

May I give one example from my constituency to illustrate the link between public sector investment and private sector job creation? A local electrical company, Alex Scullion Electrical Contractors, carried out a lot of work with contracts to renovate social housing, apply the decent homes standard and build new social housing through labour investment. Now, however, times are difficult because that investment has dried up. That company played an important role in securing private sector jobs and supporting apprentices, and there are clear linkages between money that the Government spend and the creation of jobs in the private sector.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Absolutely. That is a terrific point and there are many similar examples. In my constituency, Carillion was involved in infrastructure projects including Building Schools for the Future and hospital building programmes. I did not mention it earlier but that company has announced 130 redundancies.

There is no doubt that the north-east was hard hit by the global downturn of 2008, but the policies of this Government are entrenching a north-south divide. To quote a Nobel prize-winning economist, Paul Krugman:

“The urge to declare our unemployment problem ‘structural’—a supply-side problem of some kind, not solvable by the ‘simplistic Keynesian’ notion of just increasing demand—has been quite something to behold. It’s rapidly entering the category of a zombie idea, which just keeps shambling forward no matter how many times it has been killed.”

The problem is that demand has been depressed. We need to stimulate demand in the economy. Quite simply, communities and areas such as mine throughout the region cannot pull themselves out of the mire without Government support. Targeted support and intervention are what we need.

[Annette Brooke (in the Chair)]

Order. I propose a time limit on the remaining speeches, initially of five minutes. Each of the first two interventions accepted will stop the clock and give the hon. Member who gives way another minute; but clearly there will be reductions in the time limit if that happens. The Clerk will ring a bell when a Member has one minute left.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

All Members have had discussions with companies and industrialists, and the issue that comes through to me is lack of demand and consumer confidence. It is not so much the impact of the eurozone, and so on—it is lack of domestic demand. Government policy is exacerbating that.

[Sir Alan Beith]

That is partly true, particularly in retail and parts of the construction industry. It is not true in some of our exporting industries, which are still finding demand and achieving sales in many parts of the world. Clearly, we want to increase demand. What we cannot do is simply pump more and more money—because we do not have it—into the economy.

I want to refer to some of the ways in which we must tackle the three weaknesses I mentioned. One, of course, is bank lending. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has devoted a lot of effort to trying to get banks to lend to small business. However, he has met resistance and difficulty, and the Governor of the Bank of England has announced new measures, which I hope will take us further. The regional growth fund supplements the availability of capital, and I particularly welcome the efforts of the Newcastle Journal to bring together smaller businesses to create a bid to become eligible for the regional growth fund. It was successful the first time round, and I hope it will be a second time. The banks need to lend to small businesses on reasonable terms that recognise the viability of the projects that are being brought forward.

We have a pretty obvious candidate for infrastructure spending, where we can clearly show that there would be a benefit to the economy, and that is investment in the A1. It is seen as a handicap by many businesses when they are trying to attract other businesses into the area. If we think that Scotland and the UK benefit from being in the Union, surely we must link up effectively with Scotland.

Finally, for the development of skills we are very dependent on Northumberland college, which serves my area as well as those of neighbouring MPs. It has had something of a crisis of governance lately and gone through a difficult period. I am glad that the Further Education Minister has shown a willingness to help the college. We need it to expand its activities generally out into the areas that are closer to the homes of young people, who cannot be expected to travel 30 or even 50 miles each way to get further education. The Government are doing practical things—and they need to do more of them—to tackle those problems, which we all agree need to be addressed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition had the 50p in place for only 36 days of the 13 years that they were in power. If a tax is judged on how much revenue it raised, the 50p rate was a failure.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

22. Following on from the question from my hon. Friend and namesake the Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), we are aware that Treasury data published last week gave details of the levels of tax avoidance among top-rate taxpayers, but can the Minister confirm that someone earning £1 million a year will benefit to the tune of £40,000 a year from these taxes?

[Mr Gauke]

The point is that the assessment made by HMRC, supported by the assessment of the Office for Budget Responsibility, is that the 50p rate failed to raise the revenue that was anticipated. It failed to raise the revenue that we needed. Instead, we are taking measures that will succeed in getting money out of the wealthiest, not failing.

IMF

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The exporters of west Suffolk, like people in every other part of the country, have an enormous interest in there being greater stability in the eurozone and in the world economy. What has been so damaging in the past six months has been the flight of confidence from those countries, and its impact on exporters in Britain and elsewhere in the world. We want confidence to return. As I said in the statement, there was a sense in the spring meetings that things were a little better than before Christmas. However, the risks are real and they remain.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

In his statement, the Chancellor told the House that the £10 billion contribution to the IMF would not affect spending by UK Departments. Why, therefore, is the Chief Secretary reported to be asking Departments to identify £16 billion more in savings to pay for “unforeseen” events? Is that for a eurozone bail-out contingency fund?

Budget (North-East)

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), on securing this debate, the importance of which is testified to by the number of Labour Members present.

The Budget will have few positive benefits for the economy of the north-east, and there is no discernible regional support within the measures set out in the Budget statement. There are cuts in corporation tax and cuts in tax for the wealthy, but there is no credible plan for what is really needed in the north-east: a stimulus for jobs and growth.

The often used line that we cannot spend our way out of a recession has been shown to be an ideological mantra that flies in the face of economic reality. What the Budget has given us is rocketing unemployment and plummeting growth in regions such as ours. The north-east has the highest rate of unemployment of any UK region, at 10.8% of the economically active population. That is mirrored in my constituency where, despite the good news we have had from Nissan, large numbers of private sector job losses are in the pipeline. We are haemorrhaging private sector jobs at an alarming rate.

Regional economies such as the north-east will not make any headway without investment in a comprehensive and lasting economic infrastructure. That can only be done by the courageous state and by Government intervention. The north-east continues to suffer from the unfinished business of transition from heavy industry. However, that transformation has stalled as a consequence of the coalition Government’s policies.

The evidence supports the fact that Labour and our regional development agency, One North East, were making progress in transforming the economic landscape. An analysis from PricewaterhouseCoopers shows that, for every £1 spent by our RDA, an average of at least £4.50 of economic output was achieved. That rose to an output of at least £6.40 when future benefits were assessed.

Ministers have sought to propagate the myth that money spent in the north-east under Labour was wasted, but that is not supported by the facts. Based on the gross value added per head indices, the rate of growth in the north-east went from being the lowest of any region during the 1990s to being the second highest during the past decade. The facts and figures were alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, so I will not repeat them.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech. Does he agree that another key role that One North East played in the region was to ensure that European regional development funding was drawn down and invested in the region? Some £329 million was made available, but £129 million remains un-invested directly because of the loss of One North East. No one is drawing down that funding and no regional funding can match that investment in the region.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Absolutely. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that on the record. That was another vital element that the RDA contributed towards jobs and growth in the north-east, and it is sadly missed.

Although the Chancellor told us that the Budget is overall fiscally neutral, its impact by region, class or earnings is anything but. For example, VAT—a regressive form of taxation—remains at 20%, which hurts those who have no choice but to spend their wages on life’s basic essentials and depresses demand. The continuation of wage freezes throughout the public sector will make life even more difficult for ordinary people, as will the rise in fuel duty.

In his Budget, the Chancellor has failed the people whom I represent in Easington and in the north-east. There was the increase in VAT, the granny tax, the pasty tax, the philanthropy tax, increases in fuel duty and the loss of tax credits for modest earners. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the Leader of the Opposition, was right to call it a Budget for millionaires when what we need is a Budget for jobs and growth in the north-east.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) on securing it. Labour Members’ contributions will no doubt be selective so I will not repeat them; instead, I will say a few things that they probably will not.

The increase in the tax threshold that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) mentioned has taken another 35,000 people out of paying tax in the north-east and given 940,000 workers a tax cut. Those workers, including people who are on the minimum wage, would be paying an extra £400 a year under Labour’s tax plans. It would not have been a Lib Dem priority to cut the 50% rate to 45%, but let us remember that Labour’s love affair with the 50% rate lasted for one month out of the 13 years it was in power. For the other 12 years and 11 months, the top rate was 40%. The rate remains 5 percentage points higher than that.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, in my constituency of Easington, 1,400 families on modest incomes will lose all of their child tax credit, which is worth around £545 a year? In addition, 350 working couples in Easington who earn less than £17,000 a year will lose all of their working tax credit, which could be worth up to £3,870 a year, if they cannot increase the hours they work from 16 to 24.

[Ian Swales]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has his statistics correct.

I will go on to talk about high-rate tax. The Government have cut from £250,000 to £50,000 the amount of pension contribution that can be claimed against tax. They have put a new limit on reliefs, raised capital gains tax from 18% to 28%, put a new tax on expensive houses and clamped down on tax avoidance. Labour has opposed those measures and charged the rich less in tax.

Let us talk about business. As soon as the Budget was delivered, Glaxo announced £500 million of investment, including a new factory in Cumbria and new manufacturing facilities at Barnard Castle, Teesdale. That was a direct result of the Budget provisions on pharmaceutical patents. As AstraZeneca has also shown, that will lead to huge investment in—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The Budget is a great missed opportunity, not only for the north-east but for the whole country. It should have been a Budget for jobs and growth, but instead it was a Budget for tax cuts for the rich and the toffs.

Unemployment rates in the south-east of Northumberland—in my constituency—are alarming. According to the Library, statistics revealed last week showed that, on average, 22.2 people were applying for each jobseekers’ vacancy. Earlier this year, according to the Office for National Statistics, that figure was 55.5. Every time we mention the problems faced by unemployed people in our area, we are told that we should look at the positive signs, such as Nissan. Nissan has been and is tremendous, but it is a million miles away from where I live.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am sorry to stop my hon. Friend in full flow, but it is important to place on the record that, although we welcome the additional jobs and the announcement about Nissan, it must be put in context. Does he agree that although 250 jobs are welcome, they do not go anywhere near even offsetting the private sector job losses in my constituency alone? Reckitt Benckiser has lost 500 jobs; Fortress Doors has lost 100; Carillion, Cumbrian Foods and, most recently—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I am terribly sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is beginning to make another speech. This must be an intervention. I remind hon. Members that each of the first two interventions adds a minute to the time that the speaker is allowed. Hon. Members are in danger of pushing one of their colleagues off the end of the list, if they are not careful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

If the hon. Lady had let me press on, she would have heard the answer to much of what she asks a little sooner. Let me reassure her that I have often visited the north-east, although not since the Budget, so I look forward to a chance to do that, perhaps in the next recess. As many Members have said, it is a fine region and a great place that we should all seek to support.

Let me return to the matter in hand. In the Budget, the Government made it clear that they have three priorities: first, the creation of a stable economy; secondly, a fairer, more efficient and simpler tax system; and thirdly, reforms to support growth. The 2012 Budget, together with the national infrastructure plan that we published in last year’s autumn statement, set out the Government’s latest steps towards achieving those priorities, based on a model of sustainable and balanced growth, including, of course, in the north-east.

As hon. Members have made clear, the north-east faces difficult challenges. It remains, however, a significant contributor to the national economy, and I would like to reiterate and highlight the numerous good news stories that have been mentioned and involve companies that are already investing in the north-east and creating jobs for people in the area. For example, the Japanese automotive company Vantec has created 230 new jobs and secured 800 existing posts in Sunderland. Nissan has announced the creation of 225 jobs at its Sunderland factory and 900 more with its British suppliers. Both companies have been pledged money from the regional growth fund, which illustrates the difference that that initiative makes on the ground. I join other hon. Members in celebrating the relighting of the blast furnace at the SSI Redcar steelworks, which my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) mentioned earlier in the debate.

The reforms set out in the Budget will give businesses and individuals in the region a further boost on top of those private sector initiatives. Corporation tax will be cut by an additional 1% on top of the cuts announced last year. From April this year, the rate of tax will be reduced to 24%, and it will ultimately fall to 22% by 2014—a competitive rate when we consider our competitors around the globe. Let me reiterate that the Budget increases the personal tax allowance by £1,100, which will take 34,000 people in the north-east out of tax altogether. It also increases the Growing Places fund, which will provide additional funding for the infrastructure that is needed to unlock developments that lead to jobs and growth. Local enterprise partnerships in the north-east will receive a further £11 million.

I also confirm that Newcastle has been selected to become a super-connected city. I do not sneer at that; hon. Members may fail to welcome it, but the city will receive up to £6 million of funding to deliver ultra-fast broadband to residents and businesses, which is valuable. On top of that, the Budget includes investment of almost £28 million in stalled development projects within the north-east.

Hon. Members were keen to talk about capital spending in percentage terms, but let me provide some absolute terms and mention £4.5 billion for the intercity express programme; £260 million for the new Tyne tunnel; £57 million for the Tees valley bus network; £350 million to reinvigorate the Tyne and Wear metro; and £82.5 million for a new Sunderland bridge, which perhaps hon. Members will welcome.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way as I know that time is short. However, she is reading out a list of projects that have already been delivered and were planned by the previous Government. Can she equate the £10 million in the Growing Places fund to a distance of new motorway, for example? Would it buy one, two or three miles of new motorway? We are talking about relatively modest sums of new money.

[Miss Smith]

I am afraid that my mental arithmetic does not extend to working out pounds per mile on the spot, but I will be happy to look into the hon. Gentleman’s question.

I will continue with my comments, which I hope will help hon. Members. I want to talk briefly about support in the Budget for individuals and families to buy new-build properties with a 5% deposit through the NewBuy scheme, and I wish to put it on record that the Budget increases the maximum right-to-buy discount—[Interruption.]

Regional Pay (Public Sector)

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. We should be considering not depressing the public sector in those areas where the economy is weakest, but improving the private sector.

Since the general election, we have heard a lot about the UK Government’s ambition to geographically rebalance the economy. They have the full support of my party, including the national insurance holiday proposals for small businesses, which I think shows the Treasury’s intent, despite the evidence showing a lack of success. The policy indicates that the Treasury, at long last, realises that countervailing measures are required to address the so-called north-south economic divide. We will, however, need a far more comprehensive approach than we have seen to date. My fear is that this policy on regional pay goes in a completely different economic direction.

One of our major criticisms of UK Governments of whatever colour in the past 30 years has been that the emphasis has been far too concentrated on one small geographical part of the state. Successive Governments have been guilty of allowing regional and individual wealth polarisation at an incredible rate. The average gross value added per person in inner London is 10 times that of workers in the Gwent valley. Inner London is the richest part of the European Union, whereas the communities that I represent—only a few hours down the M4; longer on the train—qualify for the highest form of European convergence aid. Such are the imbalances in the British state that it is now by far the most unequal of all EU member states. Considering the unification legacy in Germany, that is a damning indictment of all successive Governments.

Far from addressing that record of shame, these proposals will further depress those economies that are in desperate need of investment. It is no surprise to anyone that the fiscal consolidation pursued by the UK Government will hit the poorest parts of the state most. The statement by the Prime Minister that we are all in this together is rivalled in its degree of preposterousness only by the previous Prime Minister’s assertion, when Chancellor, that he would abolish boom and bust. My country has the lowest average gross weekly wages in the whole UK. On average, workers in Wales earn approximately £519.40, compared with £629.10 in the south-east of England and £826.40 in London. Take away the consistency of public sector pay—a point made by many hon. Members in interventions to date—and those discrepancies will be far worse.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for securing the debate. Aside from the unfairness, will he tell hon. Members whether the ability of the fire service, for example, to be resilient in the event of major incidents such as terrorist threats—or flooding, which happens in my region—is likely to be undermined by such a national pay structure? Remember, firefighters will often cross borders to help brigades in other areas.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about morale and about where public sector workers choose their profession as a vocation. They do so as a lifetime commitment and are more likely to move to areas where they will get better pay. This is a pressing issue about the effect that this proposal will have on the quality of our public services in those areas where we need to be pumping up the public sector because there are problems with the economy.

It would be indefensible, considering that public expenditure per head is far higher in London than other parts of the state, for the Treasury to introduce a policy that further exacerbates the wealth divide. The spending power of people in the poorest parts of the state is obviously far lower, and that has an impact on private sector growth in those areas. In the communities that I represent, more than 30% of the population work in the public sector. Their disposable income correlates directly to cash circulating in the local economy. The move towards regional pay, therefore, is deeply worrying, as it will institutionalise lower pay in poorer areas. It will entrench those deeply socially divisive economic variances that exist within the British state and fundamentally undermine a supposed key objective of the current UK Government.

Northern Rock

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

I have always taken the view—I think my hon. Friend will agree with me on this occasion—that these things are better run in the private sector than in the state sector. I think we will see good management and good leadership from Virgin Money, which will provide a long-term foundation for a credible competitor in the retail financial services sector.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

My question is about the timing and sustainability of this deal. I wonder whether the Minister will answer a question that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) asked earlier about the reported recapitalisation—what we would refer to as “an asset strip”—whereby almost a third of the purchase price is reportedly coming from the bank’s current capital base. Does the Minister not feel that this would put the bank at greater risk in the future if the capital base is not quickly rebuilt?

[Mr Hoban]

This transaction is subject to regulatory approval by the Financial Services Authority, which will carefully examine a range of issues, including the capital position of Virgin Money. I have made the following point before, but it is worth repeating. Virgin Money’s core tier 1 capital ratio is about 15%, whereas most of the UK high street banks are operating at about 10%, so is strongly capitalised. This deal is subject to regulatory approval, and that should give all of us confidence in the future of Northern Rock.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister has an opportunity to clarify the Government’s approach to the provision of child care. That is clearly linked to clause 35, because the Labour Government’s original proposals were designed to meet the objectives that my hon. Friend has indicated. That point is made, and I want the Minister to clarify his approach to child poverty and how the Government propose to fund child care places for two-year-olds.

Agencies and organisations outside the House have made a range of comments on clause 35. It is worth giving the Minister an opportunity to respond to them, and I hope that he will offer some reassurance. Some of the comments also relate to the accompanying schedule. I appreciate that the Committee is not considering that now, but it is very much linked to the clause.

The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, which, as the Minister will know, is an initiative of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, has raised with me some real concerns about clause 35 and schedule 8. It is concerned about the complex interactions of tax-free vouchers with tax credits and child care cost support, the dynamics of which it believes changed again after 6 April 2011. It is important that the Minister responds to its concern about the poor channels of advice for employees and employers about the implementation of the scheme proposed under clause 35.

The group believes that there may have been errors—under the previous Government, I admit—in HMRC’s online calculator, and it is concerned about how the implementation of these measures will be taken forward. It is particularly concerned that although the system is designed for fairness, the results that it produces may not be fair. I shall give some examples, if I may, of its concerns about clause 35.

The group is particularly concerned that the clause will remain reliant on interpretation according to guidance published in draft on HMRC’s website, which it believes is inconsistent with the clause. I am not making any assessment of the group’s judgment call on that matter, I am simply placing it on the table because this Committee debate gives the Exchequer Secretary the opportunity to examine whether that concern is justified. He may be able to provide some comfort by giving his interpretation.

The group has raised the concern that under schedule 8 —the schedule will be discussed in the Public Bill Committee, but it is worth mentioning now—the changes will apply only to those whose employer estimates them to be higher rate or additional rate taxpayers at a particular point in time, rather than to those who are actually found to be so by a final assessment. It is important that either now or when we discuss schedule 8 in the Public Bill Committee, the Exchequer Secretary reflects upon that concern and provides some clarity about when the assessment will be made on whether individuals are higher rate or additional rate taxpayers. We need to know at what stage in the financial year that assessment will be made, who will make it, how much of a burden it will be on employers and employees and whether the figures and facts that HMRC will use in the calculation are sound and to his satisfaction. They must be seen to be just and fair.

The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has expressed concern that the change may have equality impacts, for example on employees who become long-term sick or disabled, on women or on those who switch to part-time work in the course of the year. It suggests that there should be some flexibility in the interpretation of clause 35 and schedule 8.

The Library has calculated that overall, families will be some £1,700 a year worse off due to the Government’s tax and benefit changes, of which clause 35 is one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned, the Prime Minister promised to lead the most family-friendly Government ever, and I should like to hear from the Exchequer Secretary where the proposal, when linked to the proposals on child benefit and the working tax credit and the others that we know about, fits into the Government’s overall strategy for child care.

We accept that there will have to be difficult and challenging decisions, and I reconfirm that the previous Labour Government wished the targeting now set out in clause 35 to progress.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Is there not also an issue to consider about clause 35 breaking the principle of universality—the idea that benefits apply irrespective of income?

[Mr Hanson]

There is, and my hon. Friend will know that we have been very clear that the Government’s wider proposed changes to child benefit are not fair or equitable, and that child benefit should remain universal. The former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, and the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West, decided that child care was poorly targeted, but that if universality was to be broken, we must provide help and support to the poorest families to ensure that they had child care for two-year-olds. The Labour Government planned some 65,000 to 68,000 child care places as a result of the measures that are now in clause 35. The current Government have accepted those measures in principle, as we did, but unless the Exchequer Secretary tells me otherwise I do not believe they are delivering the outputs that we planned as a benefit of saving resources.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

We have known each other since our elections to the House on 9 April 1992, Mr Evans, and as ever, I shall try to keep to your strictures as the good Chairman that you are. You will note that amendment 8, which you did not select, would have prompted a wide-ranging discussion on the impact on child care. I am trying to focus on clause 35 and not to stray into amendment 8 or the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) touched on. However, those issues are important when we are looking at the impact of clause 35 on a particular group of people, because that same group of people will lose child benefit and a range of other child care support measures because of their income, and that will shatter the principle of universality that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) mentioned.

The Opposition will listen to the debate on clause 35, but we might oppose it. However, there are important points to be examined and answered in detail today. First, how do we use the resource? Secondly, how do we implement the policy? Thirdly, will the Minister answer the challenges made by external bodies about the operation of the clause in practice?

[Grahame M. Morris]

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) has already indicated, clause 35 introduces schedule 8, which contains the provisions for reducing child care relief for higher earners. My understanding is that the latter measure will be dealt with at a later stage upstairs in Committee.

As has been indicated, Labour considered proposing a similar change, but at its heart, it was trebling the number of free child care places available for the most deprived two-year-olds. That is the problem with the Government’s measure. The Labour party considered better ways of targeting support for child care to support both child care and the family throughout its time in government, but it seems that the coalition is taking money away from families completely, without retargeting it at those who are most in need. There is a basic contradiction between Labour’s position and that of the coalition Government. Indeed, the Government’s policies across the board seem to be an attack on families, and other groups in our society. Under their policies, middle-income and working-class families are hit harder than those at the top of society, and their policies do not redirect money into better-targeted child care.

[Mr Robinson]

Rather than a redirection of money, is this not simply camouflage for a straightforward cut? It is a breach in the universality principle that strikes at the very foundations that hold the nation together.

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: there is a fundamental point of principle here. I suspect that there is much more in the clause than is apparent that breaks this principle of universality. The debate on clause 35 concerns not only the immediate measure of removing child care tax relief from higher earners, but the course that the Chancellor is charting against families and the welfare state. On child care tax relief, it is worth remembering that it was John Major, when he was Chancellor in 1990, who first introduced relief for employer-supported child care, and as has been pointed out, that was extended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) when he was Chancellor. It is right that Labour considered changes to this relief in order to better focus Government support on child care.

The last Labour Government considered tax rate reliefs of this kind. Hon. Members have referred to expert bodies. However, the tax faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants argued that it would

“be burdensome, disproportionate and open to manipulation and abuse”,

so it ruled out this tactic of preventing benefit from being paid to higher earners or excluding them from the system. As I mentioned earlier, the real danger of the Chancellor and coalition Government’s tax and benefit policies is that they could push middle Britain out of the welfare state. It is a squeeze on middle England. Taken with the decision to end child tax credits and child benefit for families with a single high-band earner from 2013, it seems to me and Opposition colleagues to be a concerted attack on the fabric of the universality of the welfare state.

In the light of the rhetoric that surrounded the measure, and given that it appeared that the Government were intent on making immediate cuts, it came as a surprise to me and other Opposition Members that when it was announced, it was delayed until as late as 2013. That was a surprise because it seemed to be an attack on a core vote area of the Conservative party—perhaps it is no longer such a core vote area. It was a further surprise that a party that in opposition had consistently called for tax cuts for married couples seemed in government to want to attack them as soon as they had children. At the time—I believe it remains the case today—there was considerable concern that this policy was ill-thought-out, and that it was a party political stunt from a Conservative party and a coalition Government still finding their feet.

[John Cryer]

Does my hon. Friend agree—this is in line with the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson)—that this badly thought out measure is an attack on the collective ethos of society, which is always dangerous?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful for that point. Others have made it, and I have tried to echo its sentiments. The Government have the opportunity to rethink the implications of this decision, because implementation is not until 2013, so I hope that the Minister will address that point at the close of the debate. I am sure that hon. Members will recall that when the measure was proposed, Labour was engaged in a leadership election. Perhaps it was an attempt to steal the headlines.

However, from representations that I have received from expert groups, individuals and constituents—I am sure that other Members have received similar representations—it seems that the policy has been shown to be ill thought out. Whatever one’s views about middle England—whether it exists, whether it should be protected —it is crystal clear that the policy will disproportionately affect families with a single high earner. As someone who considers himself a socialist and something of a champion of the working classes and those at the lower end of the income spectrum, I think that there is a basic issue in this debate about justice and fairness. For families with a single high earner and perhaps no second earner, there is a clear injustice and anomaly when compared with a family with two high earners, as both families would lose the same amount.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend has come across people in his constituency, as I have in mine, who are talking about giving up work—contrary to the belief shared on both sides of the Committee that work should pay and that the best thing for families is for parents to be in work—because of the effect of everything that is happening, including losing child care and the other benefits that higher earners receive. Does he share my view that that is clearly not the best thing for families or our society when we are trying to grow our economy again?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend: that is a good point well made. There are a number of levels where the Government now have an opportunity to stop, reflect and listen to representations—to steal a phrase from the Health Secretary—about the impact of the policy on the economy. I am sure that that impact was never intended, but it should certainly be taken into account if people now have a perverse incentive not to engage actively in earning a living and making a contribution to society.

Child benefit is a key part of the welfare state, and one that applies the principle of universality to all families in recognition of society’s duty to support not just families, but future generations. I had always assumed that that was a cross-party commitment, irrespective of party political allegiance. However, by taking away £1,000 in child benefit and child tax credits from families earning just over £40,000, the coalition Government are damaging our system of welfare for the future. We know—or at least we suspect—that the measure is more to do with trying to undermine the strong support of middle England and the middle classes for the welfare state. We on the Opposition Benches suspect that the purpose of the measure is to move British politics in a new direction. My concern is that an Americanised system of low taxation with a basic safety net to catch those at the very bottom would be a move in the wrong direction.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. This is becoming more of a general debate about the welfare state, which is clearly not what is dealt with in clause 35, which is actually quite specific. I have given a lot of latitude up to now, but we must now focus on clause 35.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Thank you, Mr Evans. I shall try to ensure that we focus on the clause.

Let me quote some figures from the House of Commons Library that give some detail on the implications of the clause. The Library has calculated that some families will be £1,700 a year worse off owing to the Government’s proposed tax and benefit changes. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned of the

“considerable increase in the effective tax burden of those on incomes in the £40,000 to 50,000 bracket”,

which the clause deals with. The Chartered Institute of Taxation also said that

“increasing the tax burden on middle-income households while withdrawing tax credits and child benefit from them will result in their being squeezed proportionately more than those on higher incomes”.

In addition to families on more than £40,000 a year losing benefits, as set out in the clause, families will lose £450 a year on average because of the VAT increase. Added to that, child benefit has been frozen for three years, which equates to a real-terms cut of more than £75 this year for a family with three children, and the baby element of the child tax credit, which is worth £545 a year, has been scrapped. Added together, that all amounts to a quite astonishing attack.

The Chancellor’s answer to cutting the deficit has been to shrink growth and cut support for families and the most vulnerable. In my constituency, take-home pay is almost 20% lower than the national average. Young men and women have struggled to raise families in my area, which has been blighted by unemployment for more than three decades. The previous Government not only provided greater financial support for those struggling families; they also invested in schools and communities, and tried to revitalise and diversify the economy and create new jobs. The programme offered by this Government, and particularly the provisions in clause 35, will turn the clock back to the 1980s, not only for Easington and large parts of County Durham and the north-east but for many of the great cities in the north and for many people who aspire to raise themselves up and to progress.

My contention is that the clause breaks with the principle of universality and that that is likely to be followed up with tax cuts as a pre-election sweetener. In that way, the Government are beginning the process of undermining our welfare state, which they appear to have opposed in one form or another since its foundation 60 years ago. The last Labour Government significantly increased income-related support for families through tax credits, and they also systematically increased child benefit and maintained their commitment to progressive universalism. The Chancellor has frozen child benefit for three years, ditched progressive universalism and hiked up VAT—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going much wider than clause 35. Does he wish to resume?

[Grahame M. Morris]

Yes, I will try to bring my remarks back to the clause.

I am fully aware that the amendment that was tabled in the name of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench was not selected—[Interruption.] We shall not be able to talk about it in the debate. Getting back to clause 35, we would require the Government to look at how their policies of tax and spend are affecting families right across Britain—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

Have you read the clause?

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I will happily give way to my hon. Friend.

[Ms Abbott]

Does my hon. Friend agree that all Labour Members have read the clause and that it is precisely because we have read it that we are so opposed to it? It is also important, in giving our opposition its full flavour, that we put it in context.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. All that we are trying to do is give the Government a chance to reflect on a bad decision that has been made in haste, and to look at the impact that these measures will have on families. That is not a revolutionary approach. It seems quite reasonable to me. The Government will have ample opportunity to reflect on these matters, because the provisions will not be implemented until 2013. Were they to do so, I hope that that would provide the impetus for a wide-ranging debate on whether the coalition will push ahead with its policy on child benefit and child tax credits, and on what the implications of that will be for families, for the broader economy and for society.

[Mr Robinson]

I am conscious of your strictures, Mr Evans, and I am in no way challenging the Chair, but I understand the difficulty that my hon. Friend is having in considering clause 35 on its own. It can be considered only in the wider context of the other measures that together amount to an attack on families by a Government who said that they were going to be the most green-friendly Government ever—never mind the most friendly Government ever. It is the cumulative effect of all those measures that makes those claims so vainglorious and empty. That illustrates the difficulty that my hon. Friend is having, and that I would have if I were to contribute to the debate, although I would try to be a little stricter if I could. We cannot isolate the clause from the whole package of proposals that will compound the effect of this one.

--- Later in debate ---

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Member for his advice, which I am not going to take. We are talking very narrowly about clause 35.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am sure you will be pleased to hear, Mr Evans, that I shall conclude my remarks in a few moments.

[Mr Hanson]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the original proposals of the previous Labour Government to increase the number of child care places for two-year-olds in the poorest areas would have benefited Easington, County Durham and many other poor areas in the north of England, as it would have benefited similar parts of constituencies elsewhere? That is why we are focusing on the impact of clause 35 not just on tax relief for higher earners but in respect of what could have been done with the spending.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am glad that my right hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to place that excellent point on the record.

I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to take a breath and reflect further on clause 35 rather than digging into the position announced last October, as the provisions will not be implemented until two years from now. Why does the Chancellor not agree to look again at the effect of his taxation policies? He has an opportunity to do so before 2013. He needs to reflect on the impact of the removal of child care tax relief, child benefit and child tax credits, which, taken together, mark an attack not just on families but on the welfare state as a whole.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the Budget report and the UK’s convergence programme. The Ayes were 249 and the Noes were 139, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I am confused by the Government’s direction of travel, specifically on the clause and on its interaction with their other choices about financially supporting parents to make or not to make decisions about child care, such as whether both parents in a couple go to work or whether one parent stays at home to care for the children—the Government’s preferred model that we seem to see in the development of universal credit and the different treatment of lone parents and parents in couple households, as well as in the differential support that the Government want to provide for child care that is targeted at the most vulnerable people. We might say that clause 35 is part of that package.

The Government have welcomed the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who suggested that bringing all children within the ambit of Sure Start, for example, is good for communities, families and children, so I am also confused about the philosophical direction of travel that the Government are taking in relation to child care. Indeed, I am forced to conclude that there is no philosophical direction of travel. There is entirely opportunistic fiscal decision making—grab a bit of money here, take a bit of money there, forget those families over there—that might save the Government some money in the short term, but it will be absolutely disastrous in the long term for our economic future and for children’s outcomes.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I wonder about the specific impact of clause 35 on bankruptcy and personal insolvency, given the loss of tax credits for middle-income families who will be faced with quite considerable personal burdens. That is part of the transfer of debt from the state to the individuals in low-income families, as highlighted by my hon. Friend and by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). The Insolvency Practitioners Association highlights the rapid increase in the number of personal insolvencies and bankruptcies, and perhaps the increasing cost of child care will be a factor—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Interventions must, by definition, be short. That was wide of the mark and does not need a response.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

In the short time that is available to me, I shall deal with a couple of aspects of the CSR, particularly its impact on my own region, the north-east, and look at some of the issues of fairness, which Members on both sides have raised this afternoon.

The CSR has no credible strategy for growing our economy in order to pay down the debt. Indeed, it will make the poorest pay for the damage that those at the very top of the financial ladder inflicted on our economy. As we know, from the statements and Members’ contributions that we have heard, children and families will be asked to bear a greater burden than the cavalier bankers who caused the crash in the first place.

Research by IPPR North has shown that the economy in the north grew substantially during the period of the previous Labour Government. However, the impact of the global credit crisis and economic recession has, sadly, had a disproportionately greater effect in those same areas, including my own. Caterpillar, one of our flagship private sector companies, reduced its labour force during that period by almost 50%. I am pleased to say that there are signs of recovery in that regard, however, and I am doing everything I can to assist.

The view of the IPPR in considering the decisions on jobs, welfare, capital investment and public services made by the Government in the comprehensive spending review, and how they will impact on the north-south divide, is that

“things look set to become significantly worse”.

On the general outlook of the CSR strategy, it says that

“it lacks an equally rigorous and challenging strategy for economic growth”.

That is the truth of the coalition’s plan.

The acid test of whether the CSR works is, first, whether it is fair and, secondly, whether it will deliver economic growth. Labour Members, myself included, believe that the CSR does not provide a credible growth strategy—certainly not for my region, the north-east. The impact is compounded by a series of announcements, including the disbanding of our regional development agency, One North East, and the axing of the regional Minister; in my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), we had an excellent advocate. For the life of me, I cannot see that much money is saved by doing away with a regional Minister—it seems to be a symbolic gesture not to have such a person arguing the case for my region from the Government Benches. We have also seen the axing of the Government office for the north-east—GONE has gone.

The north-east is more reliant on the public sector than other regions, and about 46% of working women work in public sector occupations—one of the highest percentages in any region of the UK. In fact, the proportion in my constituency is even higher. The job losses arising as a direct result of the CSR will unfairly target these women.

In the very short time that I have left, I want to focus on the effects of the CSR on social housing. The National Housing Federation has recognised that it is likely that some of the poorest and most vulnerable in society will be worst affected by the CSR, and those who access services from housing associations are likely to see their personal financial situation worsen considerably. Its figures show a 60% cut—or, in real terms, a 63% cut —in cash terms in comparison with the 2008-11 national affordable housing programme. Where will the Government find the money to plug the gap created by these cuts? They will raise the rents on the poorest in society to 80% of market value, and this will end up displacing thousands of families from our cities. The Chancellor uses the word “fairness”, but it is a concept that he does not seem to grasp.

The Chancellor has criticised Labour for not being straight with the public, and he often accused us of hiding the details of Budgets, but he will not be straight with the British people. His spending review will leave more people out of work, it will stop in its track the recovery of regions such as ours in the north, it will decimate key local services for the most vulnerable, and it will force those on low incomes out of our cities.

Finance Bill

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford]

rose—

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Redwood]

I should like to finish my point.

At the moment, there are worries, reflected in the comments made by the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, that the clouds may be gathering again in the international community, and we need to watch that. I suggest to those on the Treasury Bench that we need to do more work on ensuring that our banks are capable of lending in sufficient quantities so that all the private sector projects we need and all the private capital we need for the public projects as well can go forward as rapidly as possible.

We can encourage that to happen in many ways. An important part of the policy is that when we get some control over public spending and the public deficit, to instil confidence in the markets, we use those markets for a well financed private sector-led recovery, so that we can surprise on the upside in comparison with the fairly cautious figures given by the OBR. I am certainly not challenging the OBR figures, which are the best available at the moment. I would like to think that we could improve on them over the five years. If we do more about how the banks work and are regulated, so that we can accept that they have enough cash and capital for this stage of the cycle, and if we allow them to get on with the job of lending more money to businesses and worthwhile public projects, we can make progress.

We can also make a lot more progress in the public sector in respect of the public spending plans published in the Budget. Those public sector spending plans show public spending going up every year in cash terms over the five years to which the Finance Bill relates and is trying to finance. The increases are not very big, so if there were lots of wage increases and a lot of price inflation for the things bought by the public sector, and if there were the explosion in benefit claims that Labour is wrongly forecasting, there would of course be a big squeeze on much valued public services. We Government Members do not wish to see that any more than Labour Members do, and I wish that they would not keep pretending that somehow we want to cut the services, because we do not.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Two simple decisions arose from the Budget: the new £464 million hospital north of the Tees and the £500 million Building Schools for the Future projects in County Durham were cancelled. All would have been built by the private sector. How will those cancellations assist the growth in the private sector, particularly in respect of jobs in my constituency?

[Mr Redwood]

As the hon. Gentleman should be aware, the outgoing Government’s capital spending plans have not been changed by this Government. We have to accept the previous Government’s plans for a modest increase in the capital stock of the state over a period of great stress in the budgets. But the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme and its replacement with a programme that gives better value for money is exactly what we want. The trouble with Building Schools for the Future was that there were three years of delay and £10 million of consultancy costs before bricks and mortar or steel and glass could even start to be laid.

What my right hon. and hon. Friends rightly want to do is cut out all that nonsense, stop wasting all the money on the documentation, delays, consultancies and all the rest of it, and have a more straightforward approach, so that a bigger proportion of the inherited capital expenditure budget can be spent on bricks and mortar and bricklayers’ wages, as the hon. Gentleman wants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

If that is the case, why did the Conservatives support the Labour Government’s spending plans until 2008? In fact, my recollection is that there were demands for more spending—more police numbers, more support for carers, and so on.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

There were political reasons, I think it might be said, for supporting those spending plans. I was not a Member of the House at that time, and it is a bit harsh for me to be expected to take responsibility. I think a lot of people, not only in this House, held to the mistaken idea that the economy was going to carry on growing for ever. I have always thought that boom and bust is a fact of life. We always have booms and we always have busts, and we will have them again. One can look at studies of financial cycles going back to biblical times, so the thought that there would always be growth was simply wrong, and to try to match Labour’s spending programme was a mistake. However, even Homer nods. The point is that spending was out of control and had to be cut, and taxation is at its limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Yes, they will, and there is something else that they will do. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Ipswich, who made an excellent maiden speech, talked about prison reform, saying things that he really meant, on an issue to which he is committed. However, he will soon be disabused of that, when he finds that the prison reforms being put through the Ministry of Justice have nothing at all to do with the penal system, and everything to do with budget restraint.

As for the other measures , the VAT increase will have a disproportionate effect on my constituents and those in regions such as mine, because it is, in part, one of the poorest communities. As for the Liberal Democrats—we saw a half-hearted attempt earlier to defend the increase in VAT—the measure will indeed affect the poorest.

[Grahame M. Morris]

On the point raised by Government Members about the impact assessment, will my hon. Friend comment on the impact of the VAT increase on the third sector? I had meetings at the weekend, and I know that many in the voluntary and community sector rely on trading activity and are concerned about what the increase will do to their income levels.

[Mr Jones]

The increase is going to affect every single organisation that provides public services, including local councils––the increase will cost them a lot of money. As we saw earlier, certain commitments were given on VAT, and I have here the Liberal Democrat poster from 8 April—and I must say that it is very good. I am sorry if I am going to pour more scorn on to the Liberal Democrats, but I enjoy doing it, and I am sure that some of their Tory colleagues will enjoy it as well. The poster says:

“Tory VAT bombshell.

You’d pay £389 more a year in VAT under the Conservatives”.

The Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) made quite a few comments on VAT before the election. He referred to it on the “Today” programme on 7 April 2010, saying that VAT

“let’s remember, is a regressive tax”.

What has changed since then? What is being proposed will affect the poorest in our society.

The Deputy Prime Minister is not the only one who has form in this area. When the then Leader of the Opposition appeared in Exeter in something called Cameron Direct on 8 May 2009, he said:

“You could try as you say put it on VAT, sales tax, but again if you look at the effect of sales tax, it’s very regressive, it hits the poorest the hardest. It does, I absolutely promise you.”

So what is different now? What has actually changed, apart from the fact that the Government now have their posteriors on the Treasury Bench and in their ministerial limousines?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

There will indeed be a double effect on those families. It is all very well saying that people can shop around, but in my constituency—a rural constituency but, as I said in my maiden speech, one with urban problems—they cannot do that when they have no access to a car and the only option is public transport. Those are the communities who will be hit hardest, and I am sure that they exist in all constituencies. The new hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire, for instance, spoke of the pockets of deprivation in his own constituency. Those rural poor families will be hit harder than most.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The VAT increase will have an impact not only on small businesses and enterprises, but on working men’s clubs. Tonight there was a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on non-profit making clubs, which is very concerned about the increase. Many clubs in our area are operating on the margins, and it will have an immediate impact on their costs because the transport costs are all passed on to them. Has my hon. Friend any thoughts about the impact on such clubs, which provide a real social centre for many people?

[Mr Jones]

As a member of the Sacriston workmen's club, I have to concur with my hon. Friend. As he knows, following the smoking ban, the change in the way people access alcohol and supermarket price cutting, many such clubs in the north-east of England have been struggling. Many have closed, sadly, in my constituency. We hear a lot about rural pubs, but we hear very little about the Club and Institute Union movement. In many places, including his constituency and mine, those clubs are the centre of the community. Once they have gone, they will not be replaced. The VAT increase will be a severe blow for them at this difficult time, when they are struggling already.